Former Premier League manager Jesse Marsch stated that “everyone knew” about Manchester City’s violations of league rules as the club faces serious sanctions, including potential points deductions, relegation, and the removal of its owners. City is accused of using “sham” contracts to illegally inflate their revenue and misrepresent their financial status over nearly a decade.
Read More
Marsch, who previously managed Leeds United, expressed his views in an interview with The Guardian. He advocates for severe punishment against City, saying, “I think they should have to go down, and by the way, everyone knew about it. Everyone knew.” He also pointed out that City’s claims of profitability during his tenure raised suspicions.
During the 2022 summer transfer window, both Leeds and Manchester City claimed to have made profits, which Marsch found dubious. Leeds generated revenue by selling players, while Marsch questioned how City could report similar financial success without significant sales. “When Man City says this, I was literally like, ‘Are you kidding me? Is this some kind of joke?’” he remarked.
Marsch's concerns also extend to City’s acquisition of striker Erling Haaland, who Leeds had targeted as well. He expressed disbelief at City's reported fee for Haaland, stating, “When they said they got Erling Haaland for £52m, it’s like: ‘Yeah, OK, sure!’” Despite noticing inconsistencies, he felt powerless to act, commenting, “This is football.”
The allegations extend beyond the period from 2009 to 2018, during which City has been charged with 114 of 115 violations. An independent commission found that City artificially inflated revenues and understated costs by over £900 million ($1.2 billion) while winning multiple Premier League titles. The findings indicated that City had concealed the true state of its finances and engaged in a “disguised funding scheme” via questionable commercial deals.
In response to the accusations, Manchester City announced plans to appeal the commission's findings, stating that multiple errors exist in the assessment and asserting their innocence amid claims of possessing a comprehensive body of evidence to support their case.